I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, Lee. I don’t really see the connection.

I believe this is part of a series Lee has done following this case, on the argument that since socialized medicine requires such a large number of doctors, the standards for background checks and vetting medical workers go out the window.

Didn’t Moore say there wasn’t a terrorist threat? Apparently there is terrorist threat and it is within the socialist health care system. It is nice to see the preview of the US nannystate to come.

And it goes on...and on. But this is the worst argument against socialized medicine I’ve seen proposed on here.

If this was indeed the case, Toronto wouldn’t have one of the most over-educated fleets of cab drivers in the world.

This whole debate really boils down to which system is better. The one supported by the entire industrialized world and (desired by) more than 50 per cent of your population, or the one you currently have?

Hopefully with the welcome change in leadership, you will decide to join the rest of us.

Wishing you all a Merry Christmas.

"Join the rest of us”? Oh sure, we can be just like Canada, and the Libertarians and Green party can join with the Republicans and overthrow the will of the people in a blatant power grab of a coup.

I wish you just as merry a Christmas as you wish us, Canuck.

“Join the rest of us”? Oh sure, we can be just like Canada, and the Libertarians and Green party can join with the Republicans and overthrow the will of the people in a blatant power grab of a coup.

I wish you just as merry a Christmas as you wish us, Canuck.

Classic Rann – I thought we were talking about health care…

I’ll bite. Our current mess is indeed quite the conundrum. If I had my druthers we’d clear the lot of them out and start with a fresh batch. But make no mistake about it, it was the actions of Harper and the Conservatives who precipitated the pirogueing of parliament. The response by the opposition – which didn’t actually have the chance to take effect – was perfectly legal, though not terribly popular.

And careful where you get your information. Harper’s minority government hardly represented the “will of the people”. There are currently five major parties in Canada: three fully left of centre, one slightly left of centre and ONE right of centre. Guess what happens to the vote on the left? I can assure you, the majority of Canadians are sufficiently embarrassed by our elected government and would have voted Barack if we could..

Now, any thoughts on health care?

I dunno, any thoughts that don’t involve the condescending attitude that you started the comments with? Any thoughts that don’t involve destroying the last vestiges of democracy in your country and justifying it because it screws over the party you don’t belong to?

Or hey, here’s the REALLY good one: any thoughts besides “How is this related to Moore?” on the truly ridiculous number of posts we have on this site that have documented what a spectacular failure bordering on institutionalized sadism that is Canukistan’s socialized medicine? Any thoughts on this post other than “C’mon, all the cool kids are doing socialized medicine. Don’t you want to be cool?” I mean, you whine that it’s the worst, but y’don’t actually make any counterarguments or refutations. You just bawwww that the rest of the world is doing it like you do and popularity clearly equals right.

But no, instead you’ll just focus on me, and how I personally think you’re a twit, and on how I didn’t kiss your ass while I disagreed with you. Classic Canuck, Eh.

Now, any thoughts period?

So Canuck, what is a good argument for taking money from me by force and then giving a fraction of it to someone else in the form of health care, while the rest of it is eaten by bureaucrats and pencil-pushers in some big office buildling somewhere?

If public school is any indication of what we can expect from public health care, then I’d rather keep the system we have.

Rann Aridorn:

I guess I missed this. I don’t know why. We had this whole mutual agreement that we would ignore one another. Unfortunately, you appear to be the only one posting with regularity on this site now. That’s a shame, as when I first ventured on here in 2002 during the lead up to the war, there was a ton of excellent posters who completely disagreed with me, but at least we were able to maturely debate a topic. I would direct you to those discussions, unfortunately due to the server meltdown of ’04 (’05?) they were all deleted.

I dunno, any thoughts that don’t involve the condescending attitude that you started the comments with? Any thoughts that don’t involve destroying the last vestiges of democracy in your country and justifying it because it screws over the party you don’t belong to?

I was disagreeing. I happen to think this is one of the worst arguments I’ve seen put forward… Long wait times, perceived dilution of quality I can follow. Socialized medicine = the terrorists have won?? Ridiculous.

“…last vestiges of democracy”? Should I just cut and paste my previous post here? Once again, this is what can happen in a multi-party, parliamentary democracy. It’s not illegal or undemocratic. I’m not a huge fan of the move, but Harper forced the opposition’s hand. You know what you know about our political system based on the conservative commentators you read. Dig a little deeper.

Or hey, here’s the REALLY good one: any thoughts besides “How is this related to Moore?”

…Didn’t write that.

on the truly ridiculous number of posts we have on this site that have documented what a spectacular failure bordering on institutionalized sadism that is Canukistan’s socialized medicine? Any thoughts on this post other than… I mean, you whine that it’s the worst, but y’don’t actually make any counterarguments or refutations.

Public healthcare ain’t perfect, but to somewhat borrow from Churchill, it’s the worst form of [health care] except all the others that have been tried. There have been plenty of threads on this site in which I’ve participated and laid out why I believe public healthcare is better than private. Give ‘em a read.

“Canukistan”?

Any thoughts on this post other than “C’mon, all the cool kids are doing socialized medicine. Don’t you want to be cool?”…You just bawwww that the rest of the world is doing it like you do and popularity clearly equals right.

Some things are popular because they are the best. Don’t reduce it to “being cool”. We’re not talking about Britney’s fourth resurrection. Is the US healthcare system the best in the world? By all accpeted measures, it is not. In fact, the 2000 WHO ranking put the States at 37th (Canada was an atrocious 30th.) The countries you often ridicule were all ranked above the US: France, Norway, Sweden and the UK. As mentioned previously, most people in the US want some form of “socialized” care. Poll What success is it that you’re seeing in private healthcare that the rest of the industrialized world and half of your population hasn’t?

But no, instead you’ll just focus on me, and how I personally think you’re a twit, and on how I didn’t kiss your ass while I disagreed with you. Classic Canuck, Eh.

My first post was directed at Lee. And you didn’t disagree with me. You actually wrote nothing about health care. Ergo, “classic Rann.”

Despite what you think, I truly want the best for my continental neighbours. I have American family and friends. I soaked up every minute of the election coverage and, yes, felt a real sense of hope on November 4. But perhaps you don’t buy that, so I’ll tap into your selfish side: basically, what’s good for the US is good for Canada… you do well; we do.

In fact, the 2000 WHO ranking put the States at 37th (Canada was an atrocious 30th.)

Haven’t we discussed this ad nauseum?  Those rankings are horribly stilted, and frequently compare apples to oranges.

Happy Holidays to everyone!

Because they do it so well in those socialized med countries. As evidenced by their cancer survival rates when compared to the US.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

Too bad this wasnt included in the WHO crapfest.

You beat me to it, Bismarck.  Canuck, you’re a regular in this forum - why would you think the WHO ranking would lend any weight to your argument at all?

Indeed, the poll you showed us has plenty of room for interpretation as well.  Let’s look over the fact it’s from our friends at CBS and the New York Times for a moment, and get to the numbers.  You claim it shows most people in the US want some form of “socialized” health care.  I don’t see things that black and white with what you showed us.

First of all, the percentage of those who want to “completely rebuild” our health care system is only 36%.  That’s not “most.” And I’m sure you’d agree socializing our system would be a higher degree than the “fundamental changes” which garnered over half the votes, would you not?

Now numbers were high for questions involving how large a problem it is we have plenty of uninsured.  Lots of folks said it was a big problem in the country.  Of course, this was just a poll.  Hell, you could ask people in this forum if they’d like to see everyone in the country insured, and you’d get the same high percentages.  I’d like world peace and cars that run on sunflower seeds.  I’d even be willing to answer a poll if they asked me that.  Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

There’s also different ways to interpret how these changes or funds should be developed.  The poll gives no insight in to WHAT changes the poll-takers want to see happen.  Again, a lot of folks here want industry change, but I’d wager the changes this board would like would be in cost controls from insurance companies, HMOs, etc., not a “free” system set up by the govt. on our dime.

Let me do a separate post for my last point, ‘cause it’s my favorite!

I’m sure Canuck will want to point to the question 28 in which pollsters asked even if it meant our own health care costs went up, should the govt. provide health care coverage to all.  A whopping 76% said yes!  Wow, that’s some overwhelming evidence, ain’t it?  A large majority of Americans favor this!  Uh...not so fast.  Look at those numbers and questions again, Canuck.

Question 28 is a follow up to Question 27.  27 asked generically if it’s the govt.’s responsibility to provide health care or not.  64% said it is the govt.’s responsibility.  Still a majority, but not as overwhelming. That’s when I had to re-read it myself.  After all, Question 28 asks the same question, but now says “but it’ll cost you” and those for it goes up!  How can that be?

Question 28 was only asked to those who responsed yes to Question 27.  Ruh roh, Reorge.  There goes your overwhelming support.

I don’t see how many were polled, but let’s say 1000.  (The percentages don’t change, so the real number doesn’t matter.  This just makes math easier.) Of those, 64% said yes to the first question, giving you 640 who were actually asked the follow up question.  Then you lost nearly a quarter of those when you asked if there should be “any” increase in their health costs.  Specifically, you lost 24% of your 640.  If I round in your favor, you still have 487 of your original 1000.  You’ve gone from overwhelming majority to slim minority.  Oops.  I’ll be nice and say you’re running 50/50 there. 

Now tell Americans exactly how much their health care costs will go up and watch that number plummet like Bush’s approval ratings.

Belcatar

So Canuck, what is a good argument for taking money from me by force and then giving a fraction of it to someone else in the form of health care, while the rest of it is eaten by bureaucrats and pencil-pushers in some big office buildling somewhere?

I can think of many arguments, but making equitable, life saving care available the poorest in society is a good start. The economics of scale is up there as well. I’d rather my money go to the supposed pencil pushers than in the form of profit to some massive insurance company.

If public school is any indication of what we can expect from public health care, then I’d rather keep the system we have.

What do you propose as an alternative?

bismarck

Haven’t we discussed this ad nauseum?  Those rankings are horribly stilted, and frequently compare apples to oranges.

We have discussed this quite frequently. It seems as though any grading system that ranks the US low has some inherent fault to it. Do you propose an alternative expert on global health than the World Health Organization? And even if there was, is it your opinion that a more fairly weighted ranking would move the States up 36 places?

Which areas from the WHO rankings do you find render it stilted?

Will get to the others tomorrow…

Balthazar

Because they do it so well in those socialized med countries. As evidenced by their cancer survival rates when compared to the US.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/561737

Too bad this wasnt included in the WHO crapfest.

Overall, yes, we do deliver healthcare more effectively to more of the population in a public health system than the US’s private system. Perhaps your cancer survival rates are better. How do the poorest fair? We talked about this in “Boobies for Capitalism”. Excerpt:

The comparison highlights a paradox at the heart of the US health system. High levels of personal healthcare spending reflect the country’s cutting-edge medical technology and treatment. Yet social inequalities, interacting with inequalities in health financing, limit the reach of medical advance.”

Report

“Health disparities on the basis of race, income, and immigrant status are present in both countries, but appear to be more pronounced in the United States.”

Study

“Consistent with extensive research and findings in previous NHDRs, the 2005 report finds that disparities related to race, ethnicity, and socioeconomic status still pervade the American health care system. While varying in magnitude by condition and population, disparities are observed in almost all aspects of health care, including:

- Across all dimensions of quality of health care including effectiveness, patient safety, timeliness, and patient centeredness…”

Full Report

The study you have cited is interesting, and seems to indicate that England’s national cancer strategy isn’t doing so well. However, it’s important to note that this abstract is taking the results of a continent and comparing them to a country. Quite obviously, eastern European countries are significantly behind western and northern European countries, and the study says as much. (I lived in Poland ten years ago and can vouch.) It would be like bundling figures from the US with Mexico..

No, Canuck, I can’t offer up an alternate “expert,” as any system is likely to be as dysfunctional as WHO (or another one of my favorites, the UN, which is a wonderful idea but a complete failure.)

IF, however, there were such an apples-to-apples ranking, I’m sure the US would move waaaay up the list, if not indeed to #1.  But that would require people to understand how unfettered capitalism can provide services far superior to those of the government.  (Color me crazy, but our socialist friends don’t/can’t/won’t understand such measures.)

Having said that, why are we wasting our time talking about government-provided healthcare, when food production and distribution are far more necessary?  Surely you agree that FOOD is higher on Maslow’s pyramid than healthcare..?  Shouldn’t we first work on government-provided food?

Yes, you cant very well take advantage of the gov run health care if you are starving. First things first. Lets put everyone on stamps for thier guvernment food, then make sure they are comfy in thier government provided apartment.

Hummmmmm. Where have I seen this FAIL before…

Thanks but no thanks.

Dbug:

You beat me to it, Bismarck.  Canuck, you’re a regular in this forum - why would you think the WHO ranking would lend any weight to your argument at all?

Because it is the global standard for measuring health.  I’m the first to admit that straight comparisons between very different national systems is clumsy, but have you found a more comprehensive and effective resource? Are you suspect of this ranking system, or the WHO entirely?

Indeed, the poll you showed us has plenty of room for interpretation as well.  Let’s look over the fact it’s from our friends at CBS and the New York Times for a moment, and get to the numbers.  You claim it shows most people in the US want some form of “socialized” health care.  I don’t see things that black and white with what you showed us.

First of all, the percentage of those who want to “completely rebuild” our health care system is only 36%.  That’s not “most.” And I’m sure you’d agree socializing our system would be a higher degree than the “fundamental changes” which garnered over half the votes, would you not?

The WHO rankings are faulty. Can’t trust CBS/New York Times... and the pattern repeats itself. What sources do you rely on to get information?

According to my Word thesaurus, synonyms for “fundamental” include “basic”, “elementary” and “primary” (reading question 18, there`s little doubt in my mind it is meant to mean a significant overhaul of the system.) Nonetheless, you’re picking one question to make your point. What about these:

Q. 18 - 64 per cent think it’s the responsibility of the federal government to guarantee health insurance for all Americans (my mistake, curiously you quote that in your next post.)

Q. 20 - 56 per cent are somewhat or very dissatisfied generally with the quality of health care in [the US].

Q. 22 - 81 per cent are generally dissatisfied with the cost of health care in [the US].

Q. 25 – 95 per cent think it’s a serious to very serious problem for the United States that many Americans do not have health insurance.

Q. 34 – 84 per cent favour expanding a government program that provides health insurance for some children in low and moderate income families to include ALL uninsured children?

And most importantly…

Q. 38 – 47 per cent think it would be better for the country to have one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, as opposed to keeping the current system. 38 per cent prefer the current system.

Now numbers were high for questions involving how large a problem it is we have plenty of uninsured.  Lots of folks said it was a big problem in the country.  Of course, this was just a poll.  Hell, you could ask people in this forum if they’d like to see everyone in the country insured, and you’d get the same high percentages.  I’d like world peace and cars that run on sunflower seeds.  I’d even be willing to answer a poll if they asked me that.  Doesn’t mean it’s going to happen.

I’m sorry, I don’t follow you here. You’re conceding that almost all Americans think it’s a problem that everyone isn’t insured, and your response to this is “well, you can’t have everything you want”?? I think Americans made it very clear in the election, in which insuring the uninsured was a top issue, that it`s time for some serious changes.

World peace has never existed… the sunflower seed powered car likely won’t (not because it’s not possible, but because there are better alternatives). However there are plenty of successful publicly funded health care systems around the world from which the US can model.

There’s also different ways to interpret how these changes or funds should be developed.  The poll gives no insight in to WHAT changes the poll-takers want to see happen.  Again, a lot of folks here want industry change, but I’d wager the changes this board would like would be in cost controls from insurance companies, HMOs, etc., not a “free” system set up by the govt. on our dime.

Though I disagree with you here, as the poll does talk about the WHAT in broad terms, you can’t fault it for not doing what it wasn’t intended to do. There was never an attempt to get into specifics.

Indeed, I don’t doubt that the majority of posters on this site have no interest in a “free” system, but this viewpoint represents the minority these days and it continues to shift…

We haven’t even touched on the section about people’s perceptions of Bush’s record on health care or which party Americans trust to handle health care.

Whew. That`s enough on this one..

Dbug:

I’m sure Canuck will want to point to the question 28 in which pollsters asked even if it meant our own health care costs went up, should the govt. provide health care coverage to all.  A whopping 76% said yes!  Wow, that’s some overwhelming evidence, ain’t it?  A large majority of Americans favor this!  Uh...not so fast.  Look at those numbers and questions again, Canuck.

...  You’ve gone from overwhelming majority to slim minority.  Oops.  I’ll be nice and say you’re running 50/50 there.

Now tell Americans exactly how much their health care costs will go up and watch that number plummet like Bush’s approval ratings.

Though I`m interested in your numbers extrapolation, you didn`t need to go to the trouble. Just refer to question 31:

Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they can’t lose, no matter what?
Willing 60%
Not willing 34%

Please note the subtle difference in the questions… taxes are what pay for my public healthcare.

I don’t get the impression that Americans are more concerned about saving $$ than a strong public health system.

q30 - If you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent years or make sure all Americans have access to health care?
Cutting taxes 18%
Access to health insurance 76%

Even the quality issue seems to favour publicly funded care:

q33 - Do you worry that, in order to provide health care for everyone, the quality of your own health care will be diminished, or don’t you?
Worry 40%
Don’t worry 55%

Bush`s approval ratings, the war notwithstanding, are where they are because of his handling of issues like health care..

bismarck

No, Canuck, I can’t offer up an alternate “expert,” as any system is likely to be as dysfunctional as WHO (or another one of my favorites, the UN, which is a wonderful idea but a complete failure.)

Yes, and the US has done a bang up job dealing with international matters going it on their own. Seriously, I think the States is hardly in a position to be pointing fingers at the UN at this point.

IF, however, there were such an apples-to-apples ranking, I’m sure the US would move waaaay up the list, if not indeed to #1.  But that would require people to understand how unfettered capitalism can provide services far superior to those of the government.  (Color me crazy, but our socialist friends don’t/can’t/won’t understand such measures.)

I can’t imagine any ranking system that manages to relegate a truly superior system to the lowly position of 37th. I would think that every country has beefs about what is included and how it is evaluated.

I don’t understand what unfettered capitalism entails. Honestly, please explain. If it looks anything like what the financial and auto sectors look like, thanks, but no thanks.

Having said that, why are we wasting our time talking about government-provided healthcare, when food production and distribution are far more necessary?  Surely you agree that FOOD is higher on Maslow’s pyramid than healthcare..?  Shouldn’t we first work on government-provided food?

Interesting example. The private sector has done an amazing job of providing healthy, locally grown, non GM food to the American (and Canada, Britain, etc, etc) masses hasn’t it? High schools with exclusive contracts with Coke and Pepsi, and cafeterias that serve all the kids’ favourites like Pizza Hut and Taco Bell. Supermarkets with aisle after aisle of crap, provided by pretty much the same five food conglomerates. Horrific levels of pollution emanating from factory farms and the death of the family farm. The Super Big Gulp. And what are the obesity rates in the US these days? About 34 per cent was the last figure I heard.

If I do understand unfettered capitalism, it is driven by Mr. Gecko’s famous words – Greed is good. I have no problem with that, competition is good. But left entirely to our own devices, we people don’t always make the best choices; and big business certainly doesn’t have our best interests at heart. What is the most profitable isn’t always what’s best..

OH, SNAP, CANUCK!!  You totally zinged me into submission with your responses!  ...I mean, wow, where do I begin?  And where do I end?  Do I take your US/International bait?  Or do I take the ranking system bait?  Or do I take the cartoonishly-liberal private-sector/food/obesity bait?

How about I address one of your final comments:

big business certainly doesn’t have our best interests at heart. What is the most profitable isn’t always what’s best.

By implication, big government does have our best interests at heart?  (I’ll easily agree that it has our best interests at heart in areas of defense, which are a government’s primary function.) Who gets to decide my best interests?  Barack Obama tells me he knows what I need and how to provide it to me.  Why can’t I decide what my best interests are?  Why can’t I decide whether or not to buy health insurance?  Why can’t I decide which doctor I want to see for what ailment?  Why can’t I eat pork rinds and Funyuns if I so choose to?  Why should I let any bureaucracy make any decisions that I can make on my own?

Before answering any of those questions, Canuck, I’m presuming you have some passing knowledge of our founding documents (Declaration of Independence and Constitution), as my responses are going to be reflective of them.

Because it is the global standard for measuring health.  I’m the first to admit that straight comparisons between very different national systems is clumsy, but have you found a more comprehensive and effective resource? Are you suspect of this ranking system, or the WHO entirely?

More the ranking system.  Here’s a good recap as to why:
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=9259

Q. 20 - 56 per cent are somewhat or very dissatisfied generally with the quality of health care in [the US].

Q. 22 - 81 per cent are generally dissatisfied with the cost of health care in [the US].

Q. 25 – 95 per cent think it’s a serious to very serious problem for the United States that many Americans do not have health insurance.

You asked “what about these?” Not to sound like a smart ass, but..what about them?  OK, I honestly could not answer I’m dissatisfied with the “quality” of our health care per Q 20, but I would be in the 81% and the 95% in Q 22 and Q 25.  That doesn’t mean I think universal health care is the way to go.

And most importantly…

Q. 38 – 47 per cent think it would be better for the country to have one health insurance program covering all Americans that would be administered by the government and paid for by taxpayers, as opposed to keeping the current system. 38 per cent prefer the current system.

Though I`m interested in your numbers extrapolation, you didn`t need to go to the trouble. Just refer to question 31:

Would you be willing or not willing to pay higher taxes so that all Americans have health insurance they can’t lose, no matter what?
Willing 60%
Not willing 34%

Oddly, Q 38 and Q 31 are basically asking the same thing, but with a significant difference in percentages.  “Will you simply pay more?” gets approved while adding “administered by the govt.” drops it over 10%.  That should tell you something, Canuck.

I notice you skipped over the follow up question to 31 - to those who answered “yes” (they would pay more) the question was “would you be willing to pay $500 a year?”.  18% of the “yes” crowd dropped out bringing the grand total of “yes” to less than half.  And that’s spending less than your cable bill per month.  Anyone who thinks this govt run program can be covered for $500 a year, raise your hand.  So like my earlier post, tell Americans the REAL numbers and watch these “yes” folks drop like flies in a vacuum.

Another post coming…

I’m sorry, I don’t follow you here. You’re conceding that almost all Americans think it’s a problem that everyone isn’t insured, and your response to this is “well, you can’t have everything you want”?? I think Americans made it very clear in the election, in which insuring the uninsured was a top issue, that it`s time for some serious changes.

I could have been clearer for sure.  My point is a lot of Americans concede it’s a problem.  Like I said in my post a moment ago, I’m somewhat dissatisfied with the cost of health insurance.  That does not correlate, however, that I (or these majorities) believe universal health care is the answer.  Indeed, the numbers you specified indicate the majority of Americans do not think it’s a good idea, or at bare minimum need more information.  More information means divulging how much it will cost.  Again, by the numbers you highlighted, the more that cost goes up, the less support it will get.

Q. 34 – 84 per cent favour expanding a government program that provides health insurance for some children in low and moderate income families to include ALL uninsured children?

A minor point, but I’ll bring it up.  Children questions always get high approval ratings.  But ask for money to support them and watch it fall.  From personal experience, I’m sure we’re all familiar with school systems requesting more taxes damn near every year.  In my neck of the woods, a relatively affluent community, they pass roughly 1/3 of the time.  Lip service.

And my favorite -

The WHO rankings are faulty. Can’t trust CBS/New York Times… and the pattern repeats itself. What sources do you rely on to get information?

Canuck, I hope you’re clear-headed enough to admit both CBS and the NYT lean heavily left.  I hope you can also concede they have their own agendas.  (Hey, just like Fox News...it works both ways.) The questions as worded do lead to solid support in most cases.  The rare times they bring up a negative (losing jobs, specific dollar amounts), the numbers drop significantly.

I’m reminded of a Penn & Teller bit where they asked some protesters to sign petitions banning Dihydrogen Oxide (or something like that).  They correctly explained the substance was found in harsh pesticides, directly linked to X number of deaths each year, yadda yadda yadda.  Numerous protesters signed the petition.  Of course, they were signing to ban H2O...water.

I’m not saying these questions are as blatantly sneaky as that, but subtle wording makes all the difference.

But before you come back with “how would you word it?” or “that’s subjective” arguments, let me give you something concrete.

Looking at these numbers (and I’m an English guy, so if I’m doing something wrong, you math whizzes let me know), it indicates the poll respondents were light on Republicans.  How do I know?

Right now in a separate window, I have Q 32 still up regarding paying an extra $500 a year.  Overall, 82% said yes.  By political affiliation, the breakdowns saying “yes” per party were 73% Rep, 86% Dem and 82% Ind.  If it was an equal number of respondents per affiliation, the average would come to 80.3%.  But the poll numbers are nearly 2% points higher in the favor of the Democrats.

It’s like that across the board from what I can tell.  If there are exceptions, let me know.  I’ve averaged 10-12 questions so far, and every single one of them favors the expected Democratic responses.  So they asked a larger Democratic base and came up with largely Democratic answers, but are trying to pass it off as an unbiased poll.  Granted, in the 80% answers, the bias is probably moot.  In some of these tighter poll questions, such as the ones I spotlighted above, it’s very significant.  Had they asked a more even number of Republicans, the numbers would have dipped.

The point to all of this, Canuck, is your claims that most Americans want this radical of a change is unfounded.  Heck, even your claim this desire for universal health care is what got Obama elected is, at best, highly debatable.  The economy and Iraq played a more significant role.

No one’s claiming our system doesn’t need fixes, but don’t go putting words in our mouths.

Oops, just realized I missed a couple other points you made I wanted to touch on.  I’ll try to keep these brief.

q30 - If you had to choose, which do you think is more important for the country to do right now, maintain the tax cuts enacted in recent years or make sure all Americans have access to health care?
Cutting taxes 18%
Access to health insurance 76%

Here is a prime example of that subtle wording I brought up.  Read it carefully.  They didn’t ask if Americans would be willing to pay more than status quo, they only asked if Americans would be willing to go back to status quo. 

I’d have loved to see them ask the follow up question “If the tax cuts were eliminated, do you believe the money garnered would be able to adequately cover all Americans with health care?” Can’t speak for the country, but I know what my answer would be.

Even the quality issue seems to favour publicly funded care:

q33 - Do you worry that, in order to provide health care for everyone, the quality of your own health care will be diminished, or don’t you?
Worry 40%
Don’t worry 55%

This is the one question you’ve quoted I honestly find fascinating.  Frankly, I think 55% of the respondents are either oblivious or fools.  As far as I’m concerned (and obviously many on this site), the debate isn’t “will quality be diminished” but “how much will quality be diminished, and will the lesser quality be worth ‘free’ health care”.

I am quite skeptical.

I can think of many arguments, but making equitable, life saving care available the poorest in society is a good start. The economics of scale is up there as well. I’d rather my money go to the supposed pencil pushers than in the form of profit to some massive insurance company.

I looks like we have something in common: you have a preference for where your money goes. So do I. I prefer to keep my money, rather than have it taken from me by the government.

My solution to both education and health care is to allow the free market to improve quality and drive down costs, just like it has done for computers, cars, DVD players, etc. Naturally, you will say, but look at those TERRIBLE insurance companies! Look at those HMOS! They’re fleecing people! Keep in mind that the idea of the HMO came from the Government geniuses that brought you Watergate.

Everything works better here when the government sticks to its Constitutionally mandated duties, and leaves the rest of us to our own devices.

One other thing. Which government is going to take on Health Care? Is it:

A) The Big, Smart, Evil, Scary Government that Engineered 9/11 and then Invaded Iraq so we could suck up all their precious oil and use it to power our Mighty Shadow Banker Empire. (This is said with sarcasm. I do not believe in any conspiracy.)

B) The Big, Dumb, Slow, Bloated, Ineffective Government that couldn’t figure out how to get water to the Superdome.

Personally, I lean towards B, because I haven’t seen anything that leads me to believe that the government is smart.

Posted by Belcatar on 12/18/2008 at 10:52 AM (Link to this comment | )

“I’m not sure what you’re getting at here, Lee. I don’t really see the connection.”

Since the government has a virtual monopoly on healthcare they can set the wages / prices.

They’ve abused this (of course) to the extent that they have to import doctors (re: by offering too little they’ve created labor shortages) from other countries where the low UK medical wages actually seem good.

*** Some of these people end up being from countries hostile to their host country… ***

Although, many end going home citing the poor conditions of the UK’s hospitals… Kinda sad when low wage visa types want to go home to work in better hospitals… but that’s socialism for ya…

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/health/article3056942.ece

Posted by Belcatar on 12/31/2008 at 07:36 AM

“Keep in mind that the idea of the HMO came from the Government geniuses that brought you Watergate.”

And that the NHS uses the worst HMO style policies for everyone. Forced use of GPs for referrals. Bonuses to GPs for limiting referrals. Limits placed on medications available not decided by your physicians/s. I’d add extreme wait times but HMOs don’t do that. :)

So much for removing the profit motive magically fixing everything. Marxism / leftism is nothing more than magical thinking… ;)

Posted by Dbug on 12/30/2008 at 07:35 PM

“You asked “what about these?” Not to sound like a smart ass, but..what about them?  OK, I honestly could not answer I’m dissatisfied with the “quality” of our health care per Q 20, but I would be in the 81% and the 95% in Q 22 and Q 25.  That doesn’t mean I think universal health care is the way to go.”

I’d say its hard to make informed judgements about these things when your not told more than one side.

Bad / expensive compared to what?
How many people really don’t have healthcare in the US?

Can 80+ percent of the respondents answer those? Or, how can the solutions on the table help? Do they have down sides? Might the downsides be they don’t address all the problems cited in favor of the solution?

National healthcare is cheaper… it also is equitable. Only problem, it also sucks. Except, equally for everyone. So, is that good solution?

I’ve got some better ideas that won’t wreak the healthcare system….

Posted by bismarck on 12/24/2008 at 11:44 PM

“Haven’t we discussed this ad nauseum?  Those rankings are horribly stilted, and frequently compare apples to oranges.”

True… most dock the US points simply for not having government run healthcare… sorta a circular argument to then use the ranking to advocate government run healthcare…